24 comments:

Is this a quote from Polkinghorne about Dawkins or from Reppert about Loftus? Beware the atheist who tells you he is looking for truth but just has to, just needs to, really wants to, win.

Remember, Loftus fans want your PhD revoked (whatever that means) because if they can't win you need to be reeducated. I think there were some camps set up for that by, who was it, oh never mind, it must have happened in the Middle Ages when people believed in authority.

That is correct Brenda. However some people take science (which is an extremely useful tool for telling us about the natural world in which we live) and turn it into a totem or fetish.

Sam Harris claimed that religion + science = annihilation. Therefore he argued for the abolition of religion. What he failed to note was that the major religions have been around collectively for more than ten thousand years, without any risk of doomsday. Science has been around for a mere few hundred years and now we could crack the planet with nuclear weapons or wipe ourselves out with an engineered virus.

Given the demonstrated impossibility of eliminating religion, while scientific progress was stifled in various places, it makes more sense to argue for the abolition of science.*

*It should be noted that this is a slightly tongue in cheek response to Harris' claims, however unlike his scenario it could actually work.

I did have Loftus in mind when I quoted this, though I hate for all my posts to be about Loftus.

The problem is the no-concession mentality. I find Loftus' ideas to be quite interesting and a worthwhile challenge to believers. It's when he faced challenges that he goes into his "I'm right and you're delusional" mode of response, which makes me think that if someone came up with a legitimate criticism of his anti-Christian apologetics, he wouldn't recognize it. C. S. Lewis recognized the legitimacy of Anscombe's criticisms of his argument, and Anscombe recognized that Lewis had vastly improved his argument when he revised it. Does that mean that either side had to admit they were wrong? Not really, but they were prepared to admit legitimate points on the other side.

I think many "movement" atheists think that it isn't worthwhile to really engage Christians, but rather to get people out of the fold via intimidation and ridicule. If they do get into discussion with you, they make sure you know what an idiot they think you are for believing as you do, and that they have trouble imagining someone of such education and intelligence being a Christian. They fear legitimizing Christianity be really engaging it.

Brenda, note the use of the word "collectively" that is, Christianity 2000, Judaism 3500, Buddhism 2500, Islam, 1400, Hinduism 4000(?). We're up over 11,000 years already.

Ben, some people have argued whether polytheism precedes or follows monotheism. Personally I think that they've both been around as long as we have had people. Science (not to be confused with mathematics or technology) a very short period of time comparatively.

If you ever heard Loftus's debate with D'Souza, he eventually had to keep saying "Christians are brainwashed" and "Brainwashed people don't know they're brainwashed." I may not be quoting exactly, but that's the main theme of it.

The problem is that brainwashing is really a strong term, just like indoctrination. When I have kids, is it wrong for me to raise them in the faith tradition I grew up in? Can that teaching really be called brainwashing?

And of course, if brainwashed people don't know they're brainwashed, how does Loftus know he's not brainwashed, maybe even by himself?

I find it unconvincing to have my opponent argue with just "You're brainwashed!"

Of course it's a non-argument. His response is that since he has found overwhelming reason to believe that Christianity is false, there therefore must be some psychological explanation as to why an well-educated person continues to believe it.

If you ever wonder how atheists persuaded by facts could become "pretty lame" as you said, read this post from JWL from Vic’s blog, Tuesday, December 28, 2010 on Pluralism about Antecedent Probabilities and Miracles. Quote John Loftus:

"Vic, let ME be clear here. If I were raised in a Chinese family in China I would think like them. I would believe like them. I would act like them.

Yep, me. I would be a Chinese man in every respect. I am completely a child of my times. I am not very rational, none of us are.

Why can't you admit what I do?

Sheesh, no wonder they're saying your Ph.D. should be revoked over at my blog and that I should ignore you from now on.

My point, since Graham is too dense, is that the only way to break free from our prejudices is to follow the sciences. They are our best and only hope.

Religion does nothing here since we believe what we prefer to believe.

And philosophy? Come on now. Again you cannot be that dense. Tell me which philosophical opinions have a consensus to them? Philosophy uses the biases we inherit and then constructs reasons why our biases can be justified.

I value philosophy and yet I don't. Philosophy based on the sciences is the only thing I value for breaking down our inherited biases.

And yes, I was lucky to be exposed to the sciences, and philosophy, but that's the point. What if you were so exposed? What then? You do not have the intellectual muscle to invent philosophy on your own or the sciences. So we got lucky being born and raised the way we were. I admit this. It is non-controversial and unproblematic.

Why is it you kick against the goads?

Now without your biases toward your particular religion tell me the order of the priors that would justify your faith.

The AfR is NOT your prior. You had priors before that which led you as a philosopher to come up with it in the first place and one of the reasons I do not value philosophy divorced from the sciences which can and does lead smart people to justify what they already believe.

Oh, but there are deal ears here. And blind people.

Only if you admit you are a child of your times can I take you seriously. And once you do then you might justify Christianity without them.

Can you do it?

I think not."

Do you hear all the heavy sighing, the name calling, the reeducation? Most of us do too.

VICTOR"Debating with Dawkins is hopeless, because there's no give and take. He doesn't give you an inch. He just says no when you say yes."

CARRThis is the very beginning of a post.

Victor then goes on to explain 'Once it goes ad hominem, it's almost impossible to get the discussion back onto the subject again.'

This is probably why Victor starts off posts by having Christians engage in abuse of Dawkins.

Where would Christians be if they were somehow prevented by their religion from saying nasty things about people?

Happily, their Saviour allegedly gave them lots of exampls of how to call people names. Matthew 23 and 24 is full of choice examples of abuse and name-calling on a scale that only somebody full of Christian love like Jesus was could have produced.

I wasn't complaining about Dawkins criticizing his opponents. I was complaining about what I would call the no-concession attitude. Never admit that someone on the other side has any good points to make. Talking to people like this is like talking to a brick wall. They will never acknowledge any legitimacy to what you say, no matter what it is. When I am in a discussion with Keith Parsons, even though he's a staunch atheist, I know that he can acknowledge a good point if I make one. Same with BDK. But with other people, it's not like that. Their original points may have some legitimacy to them, but they can't sustain discussion to save their lives.

Followers

About Me

I am the author of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, published by Inter-Varsity Press. I received a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1989.